Skip to main content
Migratory Status of Monterrey Men Age 21 to 60,a Percentage Distribution, 1965
Migrant by birth (born outside of Monterrey and community of
origin"3 is another place) 54
Short exposure migrants (less than 10 years in Monterrey) 20
Medium exposure migrants (10-19 years in Monterrey) 20
Long exposure migrants (20 years of more in Monterrey) 14
Changes of migratory status 16
Migrants by adoption (born in Monterrey, but community of origin'3
is another place) 1
Natives by adoption (born outside of Monterrey, but community of
origin'3 is Monterrey 15
Natives by birth (born in Monterrey and community of origin*3 is
First generation natives (neither parent born in Monterrey) 17
Second generation natives (one or both parents born in Monterrey) 13
aThe sample is a representative one, made so by the initiation of age and income categories underrepresented in the actual sample of 1,640 men.
^Community of origin is place where respondent spent most of the time between the ages of 5 and 15.
Source: Monterrey Mobility Study.
kin and friendship ties that characterize the large city. Just why it is assumed that migrants enter an interpersonal void either during the move itself or after their arrival in the large city is hard to explain. The available evidence indicates otherwise. The great majority of migrants to large cities make the journey to, and the accommodation within, the large city as part of a kinship group. In Monterrey, only 19 percent of the migrants came alone; 39 percent came with their wives and children, 34 percent with their parents, and 6 percent with both. This pattern probably is not radically different for other developing countries.
Moreover, there are kin and friends known to the migrant already living in the city of destination. In Monterrey, 84 percent had relatives or friends living there. In a study of Jamshedpur, India, Misra (40, p. 78) reports that approximately 75 percent of migrants had relatives or friends there. Caldwell (12, p. 811) in his African study says, "It can be seen that visits to the towns from families without relatives already living there are practically unknown. Only 39 percent of the respondents who had not migrated at the time of the survey came from households where any member was living in the towns at that time, but they provided 98 percent of the current visitors to the towns." These visits generally precede more permanent migration. Caldwell also found1). Substantively, Ghana differs from Mexico in the predominantly male rural-urban migration, in the multilingual character of the society, in the existence of polygamy, and